BirdLife was the only opponent to proposals that penalties for protected bird offences are lowered, meaning that the vote taken by the ORNIS committee on Tuesday saw it approve the changes.

Yesterday, the ORNIS Committee was asked to vote on proposed changes to fines and penalties related to bird protection legislation. At the previous ORNIS meeting, a lawyer representing the Government presented the proposed changes to Committee members.

BirdLife Malta said in a statement it raised serious concerns about the way this vote was being conducted. The proposed changes had been presented together across five presentation slides, and we requested that, rather than voting on a package of changes presented in this manner, Committee members should be given the actual proposed wording of the amended law and vote on that wording, as would normally be expected when considering legislative changes.
BirdLife Malta also asked for clarification of WBRU's position, particularly since WBRU had not been present during the previous discussion on the proposals.

Following a lengthy discussion, the Chairperson proceeded with the vote, allowing Committee members to state any provisos to their vote. BirdLife Malta voted AGAINST the proposed changes. ERA ABSTAINED, requesting further discussion.
FKNK voted IN FAVOUR, while adding a proviso concerning offences involving protected birds listed under Schedules 1 and 9. FKNK argued that, in such cases, a Magistrate should not be obliged to revoke the licence of a person found guilty, but should instead have the discretion to decide whether licence revocation is an appropriate punishment.
The vote passed with the chairman and three individual representatives voting in favour of the proposals.

BirdLife Malta now awaits the Government's position and its next steps.

BirdLife Malta is highly disappointed that FKNK did not request that the existing fines and penalties concerning protected birds under Schedules 1 and 9 remain unchanged. By supporting the proposals, FKNK has clearly indicated that it is in favour of reducing these fines and penalties, thereby representing the interests of those who break the law and hunt protected species. This is far from a zero-tolerance stance.

On a more positive note, FKNK appears to accept the principle that licence revocation should remain among the sanctions available for such offences, although it wants the decision to impose it to remain at the Magistrate's discretion, BirdLife said.
BirdLife Malta reiterates its position: offences involving the illegal killing of protected birds are serious environmental crimes, and the existing fines and penalties must not be weakened.

We also remind the Government that changes to environmental legislation must be subject to proper public participation and consultation, in line with Malta's obligations under the Aarhus Convention.

Any amendments to the Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations should also take into account Malta's international obligations to reduce illegal hunting and trapping, including those arising from the Bern Convention's Rome Strategy Plan and the transposition of the EU's Environmental Crime Directive - neither of which was even considered in the Committee's discussions.

We therefore call on the Government not to give in to pressure to weaken the consequences faced by those who illegally target protected birds.

The protection of our birds cannot be strengthened by weakening the law. The fines and penalties for illegally killing protected birds must remain as they are, BirdLife said.